LTS

This was always the risk when the Sabres acquired him. It had to be exactly the scenario they hoped for as well. Acquire a guy who has solid 5v5 scoring and pair him with your top talent and watch pucks go in the net. That's what happened. If it continues to happen (and naturally that's what everyone is hoping for) then no one is going to complain about his $9M AAV. It may mean a hard decision down the road, but teams are going to be facing that hard decision both with the impending NHL/NHLPA agreement and the expansion draft for Seattle. Every GM has to prep for that and the potential that comes out of that new agreement. Bottom line, what's even $1M per year for the Sabres to now have the best odds of improving next year. If Skinner walked the Sabres would have had to replace him AND find improvement elsewhere. That would have required some serious UFA signings. And for those freaking out about Skinner's $9M AAV. I'm now waiting to see what the UFA period brings and how Skinner's contract looks by comparison. I'm also glad the Sabres aren't facing a Marner situation. I'd rather have Skinner's contract than deal with Marner right now.

The number of messages I am getting from our technology suppliers about their costs going up is certainly not going to help anything in the short run. The truth is that a rise in tariffs could be an instigator for manufacturing build up in the United States. But, it doesn't happen overnight and during that lag period everyone suffers. There's a lot of ways I could go on this topic. But the one certain way that is wrong is to just fire off a tariff overnight and not expect negative ramifications.

This is a fair question. This is not the best way to respond to a fair question. Don't get angry at someone for asking what could be done. Admit that you don't know and request a response. It might lead to further conversation. This is healthy skepticism. I did not realize it was a joke either. This is 10000% true. This is completely uncalled for and does nothing more than to further fan the flames of an issue that should not be an issue. You did. Others did not. Just because you did does not make the others wrong and just because they didn't does not make you wrong. Sorry, for the delay. I have been out of town and busy as hell with work. By and large I think things around here have gone pretty well but Weave is 100% accurate (I know, I just said 10000%). We seem to be back on track which is good. We're not here to insult each other or poke and prod to see if we can get a rise out of someone. If you want to do that take your energy to the ROR thread, or if you need to do it over political issues, go to CNN.com or something.

I just can't get over his German accent.

I'd probably opt for a 300 level this time. But you never know. As always, it depends on when and what conflicts I have. But as always, I am interested.

And neither am I, which brought me to my question. What is the qualification?

It's an interesting question. What qualifications does it take? Do you need to be indoctrinated into the major political systems before you can be qualified? At that point are you anything more than just a party stooge? What if the man is a leader who just happens to be trying to bypass something he'd breeze through anyway? I don't know the guy, but dismissing him outright seems rough. If he can manage the people under him and knows how to lead he could very well be a successful president.

Not sure why you (and many others) think this. There is not a single player on either the Blues or Bruins roster that played this way in the regular season. The way the game is played in the playoffs is entirely different. There's no reason to think that there would be no change in the way the Sabres play.

Ahh, given the quote you answered talked about Tampa... It came across as though perhaps you didn't know Yzerman wasn't there.

I was all happy to read that Mark Kelso won't be on the broadcast anymore and Eric Wood is replacing him. Then I sifted through pages of other "stuff". I don't really care about football, but I will put the game on the radio when we're driving to my son's hockey games. We both cannot stand Kelso, so, hooray!

I have a lot of friends from Boston. I always root for Boston to lose unless they make it to the Finals. In this case, I want them to win because I don't mind being happy for my friends now that the Bruins have basically been giving me the finger all of the playoffs. They are the kind of friends who would be the same way were the roles reversed.

You are describing Detroit now. Yzerman is there, they are young, they are famous for the best Swedish defenseman ever, and they are historic.

Just got off the phone with a co-worker who is in Tulsa. They're a threat level 6, OKC is level 9. He said most schools in the state are canceled today. No telling what will happen.. that's the insanity of it all.

There's a kind of chicken and egg scenario with these things. Most executives aren't willing to green light a higher exposure to these kinds of things too soon but once it happens and with the proper marketing these sports would turn into money makers. They might not get to NFL level money making, but they would be popular. The population has certainly shown that it can be influenced into supporting something through good marketing. At the same time, the increased exposure will encourage even more growth and development at the youth levels and this in turn spawns an increase in talent for the next generation of the sport. You'll see this in women's hockey. You can watch the participation in the Fire on Ice tournament, held in November in Rochester, as a good gauge of this. Last year I believe they had just over 100 teams from the US and Canada in age levels U10-U19. It's steadily grown and it's getting to the point where it's at capacity. I think hockey is the sport most poised to join basketball as being successful. Of course there's no women's football league (that I know of) and most women gravitate towards softball at some point rather than playing hardball.

This is a great point. Leadership gets everyone on the same page and pulling together in the same direction. Talent is what pulls the oars. The Sabres, I believe, have talent, that in the absence of solid leadership have been left to pull when they think is best, how they think is best. It appears that may be about to change.

Ya never know. It would probably be tough to do that once you are known. Once he's the coach he's gotta be way more guarded in anything he says. That said, I could sit down and listen to guys talk hockey all day long. During the WJC in Buffalo I was at the Us/Finland game on New Year's Eve. There was a group of about 6 Canadians sitting behind us and they were just going on and on about players, Juniors, this and the other thing. It was awesome to listen to. The fact that a game was happening was just a backdrop for them. The fact that he did it is awesome. It does make you think though, sometimes you are standing next to someone who is about to become that much more important in your life and you never know it.

That's how this usually works out. The Sabres have a value and Skinner has a value. They tell Skinner go to market and if you can beat it, congratulations. That's how it should be. I liked what Skinner brought to the team, but while Skinner is out talking to other teams I am sure the Sabres will be talking to other players. Players who can replace Skinner. If he walks, he walks. If, in the end, he's not replaced then I am fine with that as well. You can't control where a UFA will sign, the best you can do is offer an over payment and hope for the best. In almost all situations, that ends up being a bad choice on both sides. A team that may have short term success but then have to find ways to jettison a player and if that short term success doesn't happen, that player got paid but gave up their shot at the Cup. The right pieces at the right price. That's how it works.

Or it's something you say because you want another GM to believe that....

And you'll still get that mentality because despite the rule on review, media and people will have 15 camera angles showing things at 120fps with image optimization so they can prove the official made the wrong call. The post-game (during game even) media circus and social media frenzy will be worse than starved sharks at a chum bucket (I said CHUM).

I understand how you are concerned about the growth and use of the replay. You're fear is that it will continue to be used more and more and the line that is drawn on "how far back do we go" will continue to creep. It could happen right? It could be seen that an interference call in the D zone leads to a breakaway that results in a goal. Is that reviewable? This has always been the case with any video review. They set a standard and then when a fluke play occurs and everyone can examine it from a multitude of camera angles people look and say, "There's no reason this can't be reviewed." They opened the door when the instituted review. We know they don't even always get that right (helloooo goaltender interference). Truthfully, I would not want them to review this. It's a missed call, that is egregious enough that it should not be a missed call. I'm fine with the refs being held out of future series just in case there was some level of intentional non-call. It eliminates their input into the future games (just in case, for example, a ref was betting on the game). I also see why people would argue for the review. It's obvious and it directly (within seconds) leads to a goal. When I coach kids, my advice to them is to never put themselves in a spot where an official can make a mistake and ruin your day. They are people and they make mistakes, just as we all do. I'm torn when it comes to review. I suppose if 1999 never happened I might be fully in favor of no reviews. Not that the review system worked then either. Perhaps if there had been no review process we'd have gotten over it sooner, who knows.

I would have loved to have been in whatever bar he walked into and started chatting hockey with him. I hope those who he chatted up have now realized who they were talking to.

I agree with this entirely. Casey has creativity, he has drive and a desire to do things on the ice. Unfortunately his body didn't always work at the same speed as his brain. Add to that the eventually drop in performance as the season goes on and the drop of the entire team and you get what you got. I'm excited about what he will do. Even as early as next year. I think he's fine. You could want more, but with the way the team finished out last year, was anyone really going to get "more".

You are. The first is, I don't think he's being deified. The second is, he did have the funny costume. He's not any more special than anyone else, no one is. We all have our own value to the world. However, he IS Pancho Billa and that that brand was built. His character was known by many people and as such, the death of his character is also known by many. That said, I'm sure if you bring up <insert cancer patient who died> people will still feel sympathy for the loss of life. The reach of their life might not be as great, and as such the response might be less, but it doesn't make their death any less relevant to those who had a relationship with that person.

Let's be honest here. The Bills organization had to become aware of his situation somehow. Once they did, he had to agree to do all of this. In the realm of culpability, he has it all. I'm not faulting him for that either. As for how people feel about him, that's the typical celebrity syndrome. You see a person on TV, in their character, and you want to relate to them. You feel like you know them and then you begin to feel like they owe you something. The counter point to Buffalo congratulating itself is that you could live in a town where something like this is ignored. Everyone is too wrapped up in themselves to care about something like this. Which is better? I suppose it depends on who you are. I'm not that concerned about it. Thanks though! ? Again, he allows the "exploitation". He recorded the BN video that was posted. He agrees to all of this. The truly cynical would insinuate that he (or his family) will receive from kind of monetary benefit from the organization. Even if that were the case I see nothing wrong with someone using their situation to help improve someone else's situation (even if it is their own family)... and there's a reason for it.. And this is the reason... because it stimulates a conversation. It helps people cope with the situation that might be in their lives at that very moment. Perhaps without these videos people don't see that this is one way of approaching things and they ultimately take a much darker course through it. Perhaps this offers a way of looking at things that helps people get through it. I'm glad it helped. And as always, all the best on getting through this NB. -------------------------- The bottom line? You can choose to ignore it all if you don't like it. If it resonates with you, then it's doing what it should, for you. I can't see a downside to the whole situation. But people want to find a way to create one. It's not just this situation, it seems it's every situation. No one here would trade positions with him, I am pretty certain of that, so why find fault with how he chose to get through it?